Posted by Dick Hosmer on Thursday, 30 September 2010, at 4:04 p.m., in response to Re: serial number, posted by Paul on Thursday, 30 September 2010, at 3:27 p.m.

Paul,

How (since I can assure you that it certainly has been) did you determine that the stock had "not been cut"? As I said in my first response, the work was very neatly done - BUT - NO stocks were originally made that length!

Since the numbers on the barrel and receiver match, they are most probably as originally assembled. As to dating of breechblocks on Model 1868 Rifles, the breakdown is ROUGHLY as follows: 1-120: "1868", 121-17,000: "1869", 17,000 - 52,000: "1870", so you can see that your marking is perfectly normal, and that the breechblock was likely NOT replaced. I'm not at my reference material, so the 1869-1870 break may be a bit off (likely low) but nothing that would concern this issue.

Your serial number does not show in the list (approx. 5% of production) which have survived. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that it would turn up at this late date, as the National Archives have been THOROUGHLY searched - by men who knew where to look, and what to look for - pretty much continuously for the last 60 years.

Even were the number to be found, it would at best refer to a standard Model 1868 Rifle, as SA did NOT make full-stocked 22" barrel "short rifles" with drastically thinned stock wrists.

I'm sorry to be so "negative", but facts are facts. You do have, as Jim said, a piece of American history, but the collecting world has become quite sophisticated with regards to what is accepted as original and what is not. Most collectors prefer to have arms configured as they were made at the Armory. Once something is modified to suit an individual taste, it becomes nearly impossible to track.